Colorado
Contamination, climate change and political drama stall clean water for Colorado’s Arkansas Valley – High Country News
The western stretch of the Arkansas River, which flows from its headwaters in the Rocky Mountains across the plains of southeastern Colorado, is in trouble. That trouble is compounded by uncertainty about what, exactly, is polluting and drying the river, and how such problems can be fixed.
Overshadowed by the ongoing political brawl over the Colorado River, the Arkansas River Valley rarely appears in national news. But since Dec. 30, when President Donald Trump vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have secured favorable terms for funding to complete a $1.39 billion, 130-mile water pipeline, the region has become the stage for yet more drama about water in the Western U.S.
The Arkansas Valley Conduit is part of a decades-long effort to replace the dwindling, contaminated water in this stretch of the Arkansas Valley with clean water from Colorado’s Western Slope and the Pueblo Reservoir. If completed, it will supply water to roughly 50,000 valley residents, many of whom can no longer count on municipal supplies for safe drinking water.
Pundits portrayed Trump’s veto as retaliation against Colorado politicians: Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert, who helped force the November vote for the release of the Epstein files, and Democratic Gov. Jared Polis, who has resisted pressure to pardon Tina Peters, a county clerk in western Colorado convicted of tampering with voting machines during the 2020 election. Sens. Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper, both Democrats, condemned the administration for “putting personal and political grievances ahead of Americans.” The Salida-based Ark Valley Voice declared a “Reign of Retribution Punishing Deep Red Southeastern Colorado.” The New York Times, emphasizing the same irony, observed that “A Trump Veto Leaves Republicans in Colorado Parched and Bewildered.”
For those managing the project, the veto is a setback but not a showstopper. The first dozen miles of the conduit have already been completed, and enough capital is on hand for at least three more years of construction. “Some (coverage) has been saying it’s the end of the project, which is totally false,” said Chris Woodka, senior policy and issues manager of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. “It’s still being built; the veto was not for any reason that had anything to do with the project, and we’re working in every way we can to make this affordable.”
For valley residents, the issue is personal. This rural region is more culturally aligned with western Kansas than with Front Range cities. Like people throughout the Great Plains, the local residents are grappling with eroding social services and the rising cost of living. The scarcity of safe water magnifies uncertainty. “If you don’t have clean water,” said Jack Goble, general manager of the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District and a sixth-generation rancher, “you really don’t have anything.”
“HOW EASY IT IS,” wrote William Mills in his 1988 book The Arkansas, “to take a river for granted.”
The Arkansas Valley of Colorado is the ancestral homelands of the Plains Apache, Comanche, Kiowa, Cheyenne and Arapaho peoples. A geographical corridor across the Southern Plains, it was a route for incursions and ethnic cleansing by non-Native fur trappers, traders, military expeditions, hide hunters, railroad developers and settlers. Those settlers include my ancestors; I grew up in southwest Kansas, where generations of my family farmed and ranched along the dry Cimarron River. The Arkansas Valley, with its dwindling water and flatlands, feels like home.
By 1900, settlers had diverted the Arkansas into a maze of ditches. Irrigation and migrant labor supported sugar beet factories, vegetable cultivation and Rocky Ford’s famous melons. Such practices remade the riverbed, increased salinity, and reduced flow. As with the Colorado River, water rights were assigned partly on wishful thinking. Today, the Arkansas Valley is one of the region’s most over-appropriated basins, and the river’s annual flow has dramatically declined. A short distance past the Kansas line, the river is entirely dry.
The Arkansas is being drained in new ways. Climate change and a record-breaking snow drought are intensifying the scarcity. Over the last half-century, growing Front Range cities have purchased water rights from farmers in the valley. Exchange agreements allow cities to swap these rights for ones farther upstream, leaving the downstream flow diminished and dirtier. Between 1978 and 2022, nearly 44% of the irrigated farmland in the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District was taken out of production.
Critics call it “buy-and-dry.” They say the removal of water has disastrous consequences for an agricultural region. “If you take all of that water out of an economy that completely depends on it,” Goble said, “it just breaks a community.” Faced with the prospect of litigation from local water districts, cities like Aurora claim to be developing more sustainable arrangements.
“If you don’t have clean water, you really don’t have anything.”
THE ARKANSAS’ WATER is changing, too. The river is diverted into dozens of canals and fields. What doesn’t evaporate or get absorbed returns as runoff or sinks through the alluvial gravels that connect to the riverbed. Each time a drop of water returns, it carries more dissolved minerals. As the river’s volume lessens, the concentration increases in what is left. By the time the river reaches the Kansas border, the water regularly contains 4,000 milligrams or more per liter — making it about eight times saltier than a typical sports drink and unsuitable for growing many crops.
Minerals are not the only problem. The river basin and alluvial gravels are also contaminated with radium and uranium. Last year, a study by the Colorado Geological Survey found that the levels of radioactivity in more than 60% of the private wells sampled in the valley exceeded federal standards.
The radionuclides are called “naturally occurring.” But natural uranium usually stays locked in rock. In the valley, irrigated agriculture sets it into motion. Uranium is mobilized by complex interactions between oxygen, sediments, water, microbes and nitrate. Nitrate is a common fertilizer. One study found that valley farmers had over-applied it for decades. This pulls out radionuclides, turns them loose, and flushes them into the river’s shallow aquifer. Levels rise as the river moves east through agricultural lands.
Contamination is not news in the valley. People have worked on cooperative solutions for decades. To meet safe water standards while the conduit is under construction, the towns of La Junta and Las Animas installed filtration systems. But cleaning the water creates hyper-contaminated wastewater, which is currently diluted and poured back into the river. “The only true solution,” said Bill Long, president of the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District board, “is a new source.”
THE CONDUIT WOULD PROVIDE safe water to a region too often disregarded. But the project also raises questions about what can truly be bypassed and what cannot, and about the fate of the river itself.
Near Cañon City, upstream from the conduit, the Lincoln Park/Cotter Superfund site contains a former uranium mill, millions of tons of radioactive waste, coal mineworks and tailing ponds. The site sits less than two miles from the Arkansas River. It is known to be contaminated with the same compounds — radionuclides, selenium, sulfates — that affect communities downstream.
Local residents have worked for decades to raise awareness and hold a revolving cast of agencies, regulators and owners accountable for the pollution. “It has taken us a lifetime,” said Jeri Fry, co-chair of Colorado Citizens Against Toxic Waste. “As the years have gone by, we have been the ones holding the memory.”
“The only true solution is a new source.”
Without memory, they say, contamination is normalized as background, treated as an isolated issue, or denied. “We’ve been stonewalled on many of our legitimate concerns,” said Carol Dunn, vice-chairperson of the Lincoln Park/Cotter Community Advisory Group. She believes state regulators avoid testing for fear of uncovering inconvenient facts.
The most inconvenient would suggest connections between contamination in the valley and industrial pollution upstream, which affects not only Cañon City but the communities of Leadville, Pueblo and Fountain Creek. For Fry, all of the known and unknown pressures on the river point to the same fundamental problem. “We are not treating our water as though it is a sacred thing,” she said. “And it is. It’s got to be.”
We welcome reader letters. Email High Country News at editor@hcn.org or submit a letter to the editor. See our letters to the editor policy.
This article appeared in the May 2026 print edition of the magazine with the headline “The absence of clean water.”
This story is part of High Country News’ Conservation Beyond Boundaries project, which is supported by the BAND Foundation and the Mighty Arrow Family Foundation.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
The first of two closures happened on Colorado Highway 119 as crews install a new bicycle bypass bridge. The upgrade is part of the Safety Mobility and Bikeway Improvements Project in Boulder County.
The bike-overpass bridge is being installed at the intersection of 63rd Street and Highway 119. The highway is expected to see a 25-percent increase in drivers by 2040. The goal of this project is to make the highway safer for everyone. It was fast tracked after the death of Magnus White, a teen cyclist who was hit and killed in that area two years ago.
“Obviously, we’ve lost a couple of pretty wonderful young people out there,” one cyclist told CBS News Colorado. “I’ve been here over 40 years so it used to be a lot more accessible.”
The highway did reopen Friday afternoon, but another closure is planned for Friday, July 17, 2026 from 5:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
At its upcoming meetings on July 20 and 21, the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission will consider whether to impose daily hunting limits for furbearers and a ban on commercial fur sales. It’s the latest chapter in a years-long debate over how these species — which include beavers, foxes, coyotes, bobcats, martens and other mesocarnivores — should be managed.
Both potential policy changes have emerged from a surge of public interest in furbearers following Proposition 127 — a failed ballot measure in 2024 that sought to ban the hunting of mountain lions, bobcats and lynx.
The idea to impose a limit on the number of furbearers a recreational hunter can kill in a single day has been raised in public comments and was among several recommendations made to the agency in a 2025 stakeholder group.
While Parks and Wildlife proposed a daily limit of 15 for all 17 furbearer species in March, wildlife advocates and some commissioners pushed back, arguing it didn’t go far enough and asked staff to consider a lower number. On July 20, the commission will discuss one new option proposed by the wildlife agency — though its recommendation remains a daily limit of 15.
The idea to ban the commercial sale of furs in Colorado emerged out of a petition submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity in June 2025.
The petition argued that it is a common-sense and ethical change that aligns furbearers with how the state manages other wildlife. In a controversial March vote, the commission approved the petition against the recommendation of Parks and Wildlife staff, sending it forward for additional debate. The first hearing will be held on July 21, with Parks and Wildlife offering two options for potential fur sales bans. The agency’s recommendation remains not to impose any ban.
A public divided on Colorado’s current furbearer management
Public sentiment around furbearers is largely divided into two groups.
The first, primarily represented by sportspersons and agriculture advocates, argues that the agency’s current management is driven by science and represents a critical part of Colorado’s hunting heritage that provides critical data to the agency. The second, held by wildlife conservation and welfare advocates, contends that the management of furbearers is outdated, unethical and leading to overexploitation of the species
Currently in Colorado, all 17 furbearer species can be hunted with the purchase of a $10 permit. In its 2024-25 fiscal year, the agency sold 19,620 furbearer permits. There are no limits on the number that a permit-holder can kill.
These species are grouped together as mesocarnivores, sharing high reproductive output, high natural mortality rates and qualities as habitat generalists, according to a March report.
In a July memo to the commission, Parks and Wildlife Director Laura Clellan wrote that “current annual harvest rates range from 0.6-5.8% of the conservative population projections,” and that there is no scientific evidence that the current level of furbearer hunting is causing population declines.
Parks and Wildlife staff have said that the allowed methods of trapping — which were narrowed significantly by a 1996 ballot measure in Colorado — act as a natural limit on how many furbearers can be hunted.
There have been some concerns and criticism that Parks and Wildlife lacks sufficient population estimates for these species. In the memo, Clellan clarifies that the wildlife profession tends not to use population abundance for small game and furbearer management because their populations are limited, not by harvest, but by factors like weather and habitat — meaning there are “often very large population swings year to year.”
While Colorado law makes it illegal to sell or purchase wildlife for commercial gain, there’s an exemption that allows the sale of “nonedible portions of wildlife,” including furbearer pelts and hides. This includes allowing the sale, barter or trading of items like fur, feathers, teeth, horns, antlers, bones and more that were acquired legally.
Should Colorado implement daily hunting limits on furbearers?
When it comes to imposing a daily limit on the number of furbearers a hunter can legally kill, the agency has offered two options. The first is a limit of 15 that applies to all furbearer species hunted for sport in Colorado. According to Clellan, this is still the agency’s recommendation.
The second would apply a limit of eight or four, depending on the species. The higher limit of eight would be applied to species identified by state law as those that can cause property damage: badger, bobcat, beaver, coyote, muskrat, striped skunk, western spotted skunk, raccoon and red fox. The lower limit of four would be applied to mink, opossum, marten, ring-tailed cat, gray fox, swift fox, long-tailed weasel and short-tailed weasel.
In her memo, Clellan said the reason Parks and Wildlife is considering a limit is in response to perceptions that there is a “regulatory loophole allowing unlimited, unsustainable harvest and a regulatory gap between how furbearers are managed in comparison to small game.”
She added that it would also help maintain “social acceptance” of recreational hunting of furbearers.
“There is no information that suggests reducing harvest is necessary to sustain adequate furbearer populations throughout their respective ranges in Colorado,” Clellan wrote, adding that daily limits would only “affect a small number of hunters or trappers, as the vast majority of Colorado furharvesters take only a few animals, even across the whole harvest season.”
Should Colorado ban the commercial sale of furs from furbearers?
In a July issue paper identifying potential options for a ban on the sale of fur, the agency gives three potential options for the commission to consider. Parks and Wildlife indicates that the alternatives offered are “substantially different” from the petition to avoid potential regulatory conflicts.
The first — recommended by Parks and Wildlife staff — is not to implement a ban, citing its previous denial of the petition. Clellan wrote in the denial recommendation that there was no “solid evidence that commercial fur sales drive harvest levels in Colorado.”
The second option would prohibit the sale of “fur products,” defined as the pelt, hide or any part of a furbearer hunted in Colorado. The third would ban the sale of “raw pelts,” referring to the skin or any part of the furbearer intact with skin that has not been tanned. Both would only apply to fur sales within the state, meaning an animal legally hunted in Colorado could still be sold in another state.
The agency reports that both of these would have enforcement challenges.
Both the second and third would exempt any furbearers killed for tribal uses or by private landowners and producers dealing with nuisance animals. The latter is currently legal under a state law that allows these individuals to kill nine of the furbearer species for causing damage to crops, private property or livestock without a license.
In between the March and July meetings, Parks and Wildlife solicited feedback on a potential ban on its EngageCPW.org website and through several stakeholder groups.
The survey received 726 responses, with 57% opposing a commercial fur sales ban. Opponents said the proposal lacks scientific justification, goes against Parks and Wildlife staff recommendations, could hurt local economies and businesses, and would remove an important wildlife management tool.
About 38% supported the ban, citing animal welfare, ethics and the ecological importance of furbearers. Many said ending commercial fur sales would stop the commercialization of native wildlife, arguing that trapping and fur harvesting are inhumane and that the animals should be managed for their ecological value rather than commercial use.
The commission’s March decision to go against staff’s recommended denial of the petition has raised concerns about the overall direction of the board and agency.
“The consequence will be that now there is an onslaught of petitions coming your way that will tie up your CPW staff,” said Rio Blanco County commissioner Callie Scritchfield at the commission’s May meeting. “Colorado is moving more and more toward ballot-box biology, and now petition biology. This allows for management based on emotions and politics, and I haven’t seen any evidence that that’s more successful than managing based on our science and experience on the ground.”
Others, however, supported the commissioner’s decision to allow the petition a hearing. In May, Delia Malone, an ecologist based in Redstone, said the “vote to support an ethical, science-based relationship with our natural world by voting to protect native furbearers from commercialization has been one of the most important votes in Colorado in the last century.”
“The commission has made great progress in moving Colorado towards the ethical ecological light of the moral universe and out of the scientifically unethical world where guns dominate wildlife management, and killing is misconstrued as conservation,” she said.
Colorado
Colorado reports 90 cases of Cyclospora this year: Here’s what health officials want you to know
As health officials investigate a growing multistate Cyclospora outbreak, Colorado public health leaders say there is no evidence of an increased risk from produce sold in Colorado.
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) has recorded about 90 Cyclospora cases so far this year, according to State Epidemiologist Dr. Rachel Herlihy.
“We typically annually see about 167 cases of this infection in the state,” Herlihy said. “We do typically see more infections due to Cyclospora in the spring and summertime.”
Cyclospora is a parasite that causes an intestinal infection known as cyclosporiasis. Symptoms typically begin about a week after exposure and commonly include watery diarrhea, stomach cramps and nausea.
“It is not pleasant, that’s for sure,” Herlihy said. “But we don’t see high hospitalization rates associated with this particular infection.”
The parasite is most often spread through contaminated food or water. Produce such as leafy greens, herbs and berries has been linked to previous outbreaks.
“This particular parasite can be difficult to wash off of produce,” Herlihy said. “It can stay attached to greens or herbs or berries, even after you wash them.”
The warning comes as federal investigators work to identify the source of a growing outbreak affecting several Midwestern states. While the CDC’s public dashboard currently lists only 1 to 10 Colorado cases, Herlihy said those numbers are outdated because they only include reports through the middle of June.
“The outbreak that is occurring outside of Colorado really appears to have started to increase significantly in late June,” she said. “We certainly expect the CDC numbers to go up because the state health department numbers that are not yet reported on the CDC website are much higher.”
Reba Pousma, who lives in the Denver area, has been suffering from symptoms like the parasite for a week. A doctor she spoke with believes Cyclospora could be the cause of her illness, though her source of exposure has not been confirmed.
“It’s definitely different from regular food poisoning,” Pousma said. “I wouldn’t wish this on my worst enemy.”
She believes her symptoms started after eating a salad last week. She’s still battling stomach cramps, exhaustion and relentless trips to the bathroom.
“I’m on day five now of going to the bathroom over 40 times a day, and nothing has been solid,” she said.
She posted about her experience online, and the video has drawn thousands of comments, many from people who say they’re experiencing similar symptoms.
“There’s a lot of people commenting that they’re experiencing the same symptoms,” Pousma said. “I think some people are worried, and some people are like, ‘Oh my gosh, this is me too. Thankfully, somebody’s talking about it.’”
Unlike the Midwest outbreak, Herlihy said most Colorado cases reported so far this year have been linked to international travel, not food purchased or consumed in Colorado.
When someone tests positive, CDPHE investigators conduct detailed interviews about where they traveled, what they ate, restaurants they visited and grocery stores where they shopped to help identify possible sources of exposure.
Testing for Cyclospora requires a stool sample, typically using a PCR test that detects the parasite’s DNA.
Most people recover without treatment, but Herlihy said symptoms can linger for weeks and may come and go. Antibiotics can shorten the illness, particularly for people at higher risk, including young children, older adults and those with weakened immune systems.
For now, CDPHE says Coloradans don’t need to avoid fresh produce but should continue to follow safe food-handling practices by washing produce under cold water, washing their hands before and after handling food, scrubbing firm fruits and vegetables when possible, and refrigerating cut or cooked produce promptly.
“There is no reason to believe that there’s any increased risk of exposure to Cyclospora from eating produce in Colorado,” Herlihy said. “But it is always a good idea to thoroughly wash produce.”
For more information, visit the CDC website.
-
Massachusetts2 minutes agoOfficials ID man and woman killed in Route 6 crash in Dartmouth
-
Minnesota5 minutes agoMinnesota weather: Warm Saturday with hotter days ahead
-
Mississippi10 minutes agoTracking Mississippi State baseball players, signees picked in 2026 MLB Draft
-
Missouri17 minutes agoMissouri pushes for more nuclear energy to power the future
-
Montana20 minutes ago
Montana Lottery Mega Millions, Big Sky Bonus results for July 10, 2026
-
Nebraska25 minutes agoNebraska has two players honored by the Big Ten Conference on Thursday
-
Nevada32 minutes agoPlanetary parade this weekend — when to see it in Northern Nevada
-
New Hampshire35 minutes ago9 Most Hospitable Towns In New Hampshire
